RE: Someone has done the Cannonball in 27hrs 25mins
Discussion
mstrbkr said:
Graveworm said:
Whilst I haven't driven at 190 in the UK, I have frequently driven in the UK legally, in relative safety, above 150 as have thousands of people. I know others who have been around 190. So the unawareness of others is not a barrier.
On the few occasions I have driven at 190ish, in Germany, I wasn't making any assumptions about other drivers there either.
With sirens and blue lights on?On the few occasions I have driven at 190ish, in Germany, I wasn't making any assumptions about other drivers there either.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 13:14
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 13:14
On a track?
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 19:40
Max_Torque said:
Graveworm said:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
and
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
In summary, depending on road type, in 2017 between 9 and 86 percent of cars were exceeding the speed limit whilst only 5 percent of cars involved in accidents are exceeding the speed limit.
All it means is that where and when people drive above the speed limit is safer than where and when they comply. Driving faster at the same time and place almost always increases the risk.
That report is concerned with "speed compliance" and not "risk of an accident vs speed". which is actually really very difficult to calculate / estimate!and
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
In summary, depending on road type, in 2017 between 9 and 86 percent of cars were exceeding the speed limit whilst only 5 percent of cars involved in accidents are exceeding the speed limit.
All it means is that where and when people drive above the speed limit is safer than where and when they comply. Driving faster at the same time and place almost always increases the risk.
As drivers we actually drive to our own "level of risk" rather than to any particular speed. Hence, on motorways which are wide straight, well signed, sighted, and single direction (ie no oncomming traffic), people speed much more than they do on say a narrow country road. What that actually reflects is that motorway speed limits are too low, which the average driver in a modern car quite happy to drive in excess of the posted limit precisely because they feel safe in doing so!
You can't look at actual accident data and directly correlate an "risk factor" from speed, simply because there is no opposing data. This is because when there ISN'T an accident, there is NO data. So whilst we know (roughly, see below) when there has been an accident, how many were exceeding the limit, we have no way of knowing how many cars that were exceeding the limit DIDN'T have an accident, making a direct comparison impossible
The only way to get a direct, objective dataset would be to carry out a study where there are a large set of drivers (thousands), individual subsets of which which are required at all times to drive at fixed speeds on fixed types of roads, and in say 10 years time, we would see which group had the highest accident rate! Unfortunately, that study would require groups to break the speed limit and so be impossible to conduct!
There are also significant issues and subtleties in the way accidents are reported and categorised when it comes to determing the influence of speed, both "excessive" (in excess of posted limits) and "in-appropriate" (below limits, but too fast to stop / avoid)
For an accident to be officially recorded as "due to excessive speed" there needs to be objective and direct evidence to back that up. And this simply doesn't happen in the vast majority of cases. For most accidents, with no objective evidence, "excessive speed" is not actually allowed to be put down as a factor. Ie, you have a minor bump with another car on a road, no one is hurt, but the police are called. The drivers are asked "how fast were you going" and eye witness sort, but realistically, for the majorioty of non injury or minor injury accidents there is no objective evidence, and so that accident cannot be recorded as due to "excessive speed". (There's plenty of "yeah, they were driving like a lunatic" subjective evidence but that is no enough )
When you look at serious, major injury accidents, a very different picture is seen. Here due to the severity of the accident, full (expensive & timeconsuming) accident investigations occur that much better identify the true causes of the accident. And here we see a much higher correlation with excessive speed and in-appropriate speed. And yes, the direct risk factor from speeding is lower than for other (human) causes (primarily miss-attention and poor judgement) but when you compare risk factors for speeding only, then the picture is relatively clear.
World Health Organisation said:
An increase in average speed of 1 km/h typically results in a 3% higher risk of a crash involving injury, with a 4–5% increase for crashes that result in fatalities"
https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdfEuropean data summary here:
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/special...
Again, no claims are made for "non injury" accidents simply because there is no objective data for those sorts of accidents
It's also worth noting that risk is often rated as "chance of accident vs distance driven" so as your average speed increases, the numerical chance of having an accident actually increases even if the risk percentage itself does not, because you travel further in any given time increment!
BTW, if you really want to geek out, the industry standard models for accident risk vs speed were developed by Dr Göran Nilsson, first published in 1981, and revised in 2004:
http://saiv.espaceweb.usherbrooke.ca/References/03...
Higher speeds as an absolute, not so much given our safest roads have the highest speed limits and highest average speeds. It remains that people don't tend to be exceeding the speed limit when and where they have accidents.
There is pretty much consensus on this. It's not widely discussed because it can be twisted to say "Hey if I drive over the speed limit I will make myself safer."
Length of time exposed to risk, of course increases the likelihood, almost proportionately, irrespective of the relative levels of risk.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 19:59
Obviously all other things being equal more speed both increases the probability of an accident and increases the severity of any given accident. All other things are not equal though and an experienced/talented driver in a capable car with his eyes on stalks for dangers ahead, with others to assist is going to significantly decrease the probability of an accident. What the net effect on the probability is, is anyone's guess.
Graveworm said:
There is pretty much consensus on this
Indeed there is, and i quoted the industry standard increase in risk vs speed in my post.Going faster does NOT make you less likely to crash for very simple reasons:
1) At a higher speed you (and other motorists who have to be included in the consideration) have less time to observe and react to any given event before you get to it/them
2) At a higher speed you cannot slow down as quickly, in time or distance terms, and due to the square term in the kinetic energy equation, this rapidly becomes the dominant factor. (a 1500 kg car at 30 mph stores 134 kJ of energy, but at twice the speed (60 mph) that increases to 539 KJ (4x as much)
Consider the end cases:
Travel at Zero mph and you'll never hit anything
Travekl at 1 million mph and you'll pretty much instantly hit everything
Now, between those end cases, the profile is certainly not linear, but it does increase monatonically with speed. For any given situation, going faster is more likely to cause a crash, going slower less likely to cause a crash.
So it's ridiculous to say that driving becomes less risky as you drive faster, or we could all drive round in mclarens and ferrari's doing 180 everywhere and nobody would crash, which is pretty clearly demonstrably incorrect....
The modelling behind the determination of "risk increase vs speed" is all carefully summarised in the papers i linked too (Dr Göran Nilsson's work), and is indeed "industry standard" when it comes to road design and limit determination etc
At the risk of repeating myself: You cannot take the accident statistics as published as a true metric for the effects of excessive speed. This is fundamentally because ALL accidents are necessarily a result of some form of excessive speed (otherwise, why didn't you just stop before you crashed eh???). The current system allocates "excessive speed" and "in-appropriate speed" but only under very narrow circumstances, that make statistical estimates based on that data highly eroneous. All that data really tells us is the appropriateness (or otherwise) of the posted speed limit. if 5% of drivers were speeding and crashed with a 70 mph limit, then how many % of those whom crashed would be speeding if the limit were 80? Less of course!
"but yes, a speeding driver is an alert driver therefore safer" is also clearly eroneous, because that alert speeding driver would be EVEN less likely to crash if they were alert but driving slower!
Yes, there is a small link between driver observation and alertness, but it's not actually as big as you might think, simply because driving is, in general, rather boring. Even if you drive at 100 mph, after a while, you'll loose concentration. Try it, do 150 mph on the autobahn for 3 hours and pretty soon you'll stop concentrating (this usually actually shows when people having been travelling at high speed for along period, slow down insufficiently for a minor road feature and crash (because after 150mph, even 70 feels slow, because you have got used to doing 150!)
The average casuality rate in the uk for reported injury accidents is around 240 casulties per BILLION miles driven, so that's an injury, on average, once very 4.1 million miles. The average driver drives around 8,000 miles a year in the uk, so on, average, you as an individual driver should be able to drive for about 520 years before you crash an hurt someone, or, as we drive for about 50 years of our life, you'd epect over your life time that 1 in 10 of us would have a crash that results in an injury.
That's really, fantastically safe by most measures! But for certain, the faster you drive, the more likely you are to crash.........
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 7th December 23:36
Max_Torque said:
Indeed there is, and i quoted the industry standard increase in risk vs speed in my post.
Going faster does NOT make you less likely to crash for very simple reasons:
1) At a higher speed you (and other motorists who have to be included in the consideration) have less time to observe and react to any given event before you get to it/them
2) At a higher speed you cannot slow down as quickly, in time or distance terms, and due to the square term in the kinetic energy equation, this rapidly becomes the dominant factor. (a 1500 kg car at 30 mph stores 134 kJ of energy, but at twice the speed (60 mph) that increases to 539 KJ (4x as much)
Consider the end cases:
Travel at Zero mph and you'll never hit anything
Travekl at 1 million mph and you'll pretty much instantly hit everything
Now, between those end cases, the profile is certainly not linear, but it does increase monatonically with speed. For any given situation, going faster is more likely to cause a crash, going slower less likely to cause a crash.
So it's ridiculous to say that driving becomes less risky as you drive faster, or we could all drive round in mclarens and ferrari's doing 180 everywhere and nobody would crash, which is pretty clearly demonstrably incorrect....
The modelling behind the determination of "risk increase vs speed" is all carefully summarised in the papers i linked too (Dr Göran Nilsson's work), and is indeed "industry standard" when it comes to road design and limit determination etc
At the risk of repeating myself: You cannot take the accident statistics as published as a true metric for the effects of excessive speed. This is fundamentally because ALL accidents are necessarily a result of some form of excessive speed (otherwise, why didn't you just stop before you crashed eh???). The current system allocates "excessive speed" and "in-appropriate speed" but only under very narrow circumstances, that make statistical estimates based on that data highly eroneous. All that data really tells us is the appropriateness (or otherwise) of the posted speed limit. if 5% of drivers were speeding and crashed with a 70 mph limit, then how many % of those whom crashed would be speeding if the limit were 80? Less of course!
"but yes, a speeding driver is an alert driver therefore safer" is also clearly eroneous, because that alert speeding driver would be EVEN less likely to crash if they were alert but driving slower!
Yes, there is a small link between driver observation and alertness, but it's not actually as big as you might think, simply because driving is, in general, rather boring. Even if you drive at 100 mph, after a while, you'll loose concentration. Try it, do 150 mph on the autobahn for 3 hours and pretty soon you'll stop concentrating (this usually actually shows when people having been travelling at high speed for along period, slow down insufficiently for a minor road feature and crash (because after 150mph, even 70 feels slow, because you have got used to doing 150!)
The average casuality rate in the uk for reported injury accidents is around 240 casulties per BILLION miles driven, so that's an injury, on average, once very 4.1 million miles. The average driver drives around 8,000 miles a year in the uk, so on, average, you as an individual driver should be able to drive for about 520 years before you crash an hurt someone, or, as we drive for about 50 years of our life, you'd epect over your life time that 1 in 10 of us would have a crash that results in an injury.
That's really, fantastically safe by most measures! But for certain, the faster you drive, the more likely you are to crash.........
Did you read what I wrote.. No mention of driving faster makes you safer. Exactly the opposite all other things being equal. You have addressed everything I didn't post again even when I wrote explicitly that it wasn't what I was saying. Going faster does NOT make you less likely to crash for very simple reasons:
1) At a higher speed you (and other motorists who have to be included in the consideration) have less time to observe and react to any given event before you get to it/them
2) At a higher speed you cannot slow down as quickly, in time or distance terms, and due to the square term in the kinetic energy equation, this rapidly becomes the dominant factor. (a 1500 kg car at 30 mph stores 134 kJ of energy, but at twice the speed (60 mph) that increases to 539 KJ (4x as much)
Consider the end cases:
Travel at Zero mph and you'll never hit anything
Travekl at 1 million mph and you'll pretty much instantly hit everything
Now, between those end cases, the profile is certainly not linear, but it does increase monatonically with speed. For any given situation, going faster is more likely to cause a crash, going slower less likely to cause a crash.
So it's ridiculous to say that driving becomes less risky as you drive faster, or we could all drive round in mclarens and ferrari's doing 180 everywhere and nobody would crash, which is pretty clearly demonstrably incorrect....
The modelling behind the determination of "risk increase vs speed" is all carefully summarised in the papers i linked too (Dr Göran Nilsson's work), and is indeed "industry standard" when it comes to road design and limit determination etc
At the risk of repeating myself: You cannot take the accident statistics as published as a true metric for the effects of excessive speed. This is fundamentally because ALL accidents are necessarily a result of some form of excessive speed (otherwise, why didn't you just stop before you crashed eh???). The current system allocates "excessive speed" and "in-appropriate speed" but only under very narrow circumstances, that make statistical estimates based on that data highly eroneous. All that data really tells us is the appropriateness (or otherwise) of the posted speed limit. if 5% of drivers were speeding and crashed with a 70 mph limit, then how many % of those whom crashed would be speeding if the limit were 80? Less of course!
"but yes, a speeding driver is an alert driver therefore safer" is also clearly eroneous, because that alert speeding driver would be EVEN less likely to crash if they were alert but driving slower!
Yes, there is a small link between driver observation and alertness, but it's not actually as big as you might think, simply because driving is, in general, rather boring. Even if you drive at 100 mph, after a while, you'll loose concentration. Try it, do 150 mph on the autobahn for 3 hours and pretty soon you'll stop concentrating (this usually actually shows when people having been travelling at high speed for along period, slow down insufficiently for a minor road feature and crash (because after 150mph, even 70 feels slow, because you have got used to doing 150!)
The average casuality rate in the uk for reported injury accidents is around 240 casulties per BILLION miles driven, so that's an injury, on average, once very 4.1 million miles. The average driver drives around 8,000 miles a year in the uk, so on, average, you as an individual driver should be able to drive for about 520 years before you crash an hurt someone, or, as we drive for about 50 years of our life, you'd epect over your life time that 1 in 10 of us would have a crash that results in an injury.
That's really, fantastically safe by most measures! But for certain, the faster you drive, the more likely you are to crash.........
Edited by Max_Torque on Saturday 7th December 23:36
Simply and now for the third time. it is irrefutable that when and where drivers exceed the speed limit they are statistically less likely to be involved in an accident, of any severity than when and where they comply. We have decades of evidence that never shows anything but this.
Graveworm said:
it is irrefutable that when and where drivers exceed the speed limit they are statistically less likely to be involved in an accident
explain how this can be true ^^^ and if it is why doesn't everyone just drive at 300 mph everywhere and therefore there would be no accidents ever.In a 30 mph zone? want to not have an accident? ah, just floor it till you're doing 70, yup, that's you compeltely safe.
On a motorway? get a Veryon and do 270 mph, job done officer, i'm never going have an accident at that speed..
Seriously, can you not see how ridicuous those statements are??
Lets be clear:
The faster you drive, the more likely you are to have an accident.
Which is precisely why we have speed limits in place to limit the speed at which people drive. The higher the consiquence or more vunerable the victim, the more likely the occurence, then the lower the limit is set to protect people appropriately. It's critical to understand that a lower speed limit does NOT prevent all accidents, merely reduces the number of those accidents, and the severity of the outcome to a level that as a society we accept.
All accidents are primarily due to excessive speed
because otherwise, why did you simply not just stop before you hit the other car or perhaps why not just drive round it instead of into it??
Therefore the further categories (inattention, excess speed, in-approrpriate speed, etc) used to sort the secondary causes that lead to the primary cause (driving too fast and being unable to stop before you hit something). They are an attempt to understand why, on average motorists were driving too fast, and that is all. As i have tried to explain many times, you therefore can't simply divide the percentage of accidents primarily caused by excess speed by percentage of people having accidents, simply because "excess speed" is a narrow secondary determination that is only relevant to exceeding the posted limit.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 8th December 13:48
Max_Torque said:
explain how this can be true ^^^ and if it is why doesn't everyone just drive at 300 mph everywhere and therefore there would be no accidents ever.
In a 30 mph zone? want to not have an accident? ah, just floor it till you're doing 70, yup, that's you compeltely safe.
On a motorway? get a Veryon and do 270 mph, job done officer, i'm never going have an accident at that speed..
Seriously, can you not see how ridicuous those statements are??
Lets be clear:
The faster you drive, the more likely you are to have an accident.
Which is precisely why we have speed limits in place to limit the speed at which people drive. The higher the consiquence or more vunerable the victim, the more likely the occurence, then the lower the limit is set to protect people appropriately. It's critical to understand that a lower speed limit does NOT prevent all accidents, merely reduces the number of those accidents, and the severity of the outcome to a level that as a society we accept.
All accidents are primarily due to excessive speed
because otherwise, why did you simply not just stop before you hit the other car or perhaps why not just drive round it instead of into it??
Therefore the further categories (inattention, excess speed, in-approrpriate speed, etc) used to sort the secondary causes that lead to the primary cause (driving too fast and being unable to stop before you hit something). They are an attempt to understand why, on average motorists were driving too fast, and that is all. As i have tried to explain many times, you therefore can't simply divide the percentage of accidents primarily caused by excess speed by percentage of people having accidents, simply because "excess speed" is a narrow secondary determination that is only relevant to exceeding the posted limit.
It's true because a much much lower lower proportion, of vehicles involved in accidents are exceeding the speed limit, than in normal motoring. In a 30 mph zone? want to not have an accident? ah, just floor it till you're doing 70, yup, that's you compeltely safe.
On a motorway? get a Veryon and do 270 mph, job done officer, i'm never going have an accident at that speed..
Seriously, can you not see how ridicuous those statements are??
Lets be clear:
The faster you drive, the more likely you are to have an accident.
Which is precisely why we have speed limits in place to limit the speed at which people drive. The higher the consiquence or more vunerable the victim, the more likely the occurence, then the lower the limit is set to protect people appropriately. It's critical to understand that a lower speed limit does NOT prevent all accidents, merely reduces the number of those accidents, and the severity of the outcome to a level that as a society we accept.
All accidents are primarily due to excessive speed
because otherwise, why did you simply not just stop before you hit the other car or perhaps why not just drive round it instead of into it??
Therefore the further categories (inattention, excess speed, in-approrpriate speed, etc) used to sort the secondary causes that lead to the primary cause (driving too fast and being unable to stop before you hit something). They are an attempt to understand why, on average motorists were driving too fast, and that is all. As i have tried to explain many times, you therefore can't simply divide the percentage of accidents primarily caused by excess speed by percentage of people having accidents, simply because "excess speed" is a narrow secondary determination that is only relevant to exceeding the posted limit.
Edited by Max_Torque on Sunday 8th December 13:48
For the last time. Faster ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL Is almost always more risky. Which is what no one has denied and which you keep repeating as the counter to the above. Which is not the same.
However for example often travelling on an empty motorway, in perfect conditions, over 70 is safer than doing 30 in a residential area. It's not surprising that the statistics show that, when people choose to speed, it doesn't increase the risk above that of where they choose to travel within the speed limit. It's not that it is less risky, because of the speed, it's despite it - because the overall risk is still lower.
The accident rate of roads with the highest speeds and highest limits is the lowest. If faster was absolutely, rather than relatively, more risky then that would not apply.
Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 8th December 17:08
Max_Torque said:
DonkeyApple said:
Max doesn’t need to read. He instively knows that you are wrong and he is right. 
So you also think that the faster you drive the less likely you are to have an accident?Seriously, think about that for just a second!
I'm comfortable that the people that are setting new records are doing it in the most responsible way possible. Twin drivers, spotters both in and out of the car, well prepared cars, tons of research on weather and police locations etc. They don't appear to be taking too many risks in terms of blasting past Doris at 190mph at lunchtime. They leave Manhattan in the evening to get as much time in the bank overnight on the East before steadily losing it on the west and daytime.
I'm also really impressed with the "stealth-ifying" of the E63. The vinyl wrap on the CF parts and lights, debadging. Grey callipers "A silver passenger car"
The camera on the roof is an interesting addition (albeit problematic) Interesting as well that all 3 verified runs were in German 4 seaters.
By chance I've just received Ed Bolians book. The intro by Alex Roy is funny. It's clear he doesn't believe that Rawlings (Gas Monkey) and Collins ACTUALLY did their run in 2007 that broke Roy/Mahers record of 2006. And having seen a lot of RR through the TV show, I'll believe Roy in this instance!
I think it is still a romantic notion to see what can be done. Like climbing Everest. Is it pushing mankind forward? No. Is it something I want every tom, dick and harry doing? No. But sometimes ultimately pointless endeavours are good.
Given that Dan Gurney did it way back when in a Daytona. I'd love to see a current or near current F1 driver do it one day in something like an F812 even if they don't break the record, just because it would show a side of them that appeals to adventure.
I'm also really impressed with the "stealth-ifying" of the E63. The vinyl wrap on the CF parts and lights, debadging. Grey callipers "A silver passenger car"
The camera on the roof is an interesting addition (albeit problematic) Interesting as well that all 3 verified runs were in German 4 seaters. By chance I've just received Ed Bolians book. The intro by Alex Roy is funny. It's clear he doesn't believe that Rawlings (Gas Monkey) and Collins ACTUALLY did their run in 2007 that broke Roy/Mahers record of 2006. And having seen a lot of RR through the TV show, I'll believe Roy in this instance!
I think it is still a romantic notion to see what can be done. Like climbing Everest. Is it pushing mankind forward? No. Is it something I want every tom, dick and harry doing? No. But sometimes ultimately pointless endeavours are good.
Given that Dan Gurney did it way back when in a Daytona. I'd love to see a current or near current F1 driver do it one day in something like an F812 even if they don't break the record, just because it would show a side of them that appeals to adventure.
cheddar said:
My guess is that they overtake at around 90mph then accelerate up to 120/30/40 on the empty bits.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Gumball, rather than Cannonball, is whole elevated level of stupidity, drivers still intoxicated from 4am parties, weaving, racing, overtaking/undertaking at 200mph, endangering the general public and often crashing.
Yup. This run, and Bolian and Roys crossing before were far more scientific, methodical and planed than Gumball3000 or the like.I see nothing wrong with that.
Gumball, rather than Cannonball, is whole elevated level of stupidity, drivers still intoxicated from 4am parties, weaving, racing, overtaking/undertaking at 200mph, endangering the general public and often crashing.
Max_Torque said:
I assume you are talking about the N'ring video of the M5 stepping sideways and into the barriers?
And if so, how can you say "speed was not the cause" as it's quite clearly the cause!
(Hint cars don't just suddenly loose traction and go sideways all of their own. At lower speed there is both a lower dynamic force on the vehicle meaning less chance of a loss of control, and because the speed is lower, there is more time and room to sort it all out before you end up in the barriers if you do loose control)
Looks to me like the Ring was wet. And it's well known for a being a bit slippery when wet. The driver had backed off going into fox hole anyway (Fuchsröhre) and it still stepped sideways. He didn't do much wrong in my initial watch.And if so, how can you say "speed was not the cause" as it's quite clearly the cause!
(Hint cars don't just suddenly loose traction and go sideways all of their own. At lower speed there is both a lower dynamic force on the vehicle meaning less chance of a loss of control, and because the speed is lower, there is more time and room to sort it all out before you end up in the barriers if you do loose control)
fblm said:
Obviously all other things being equal more speed both increases the probability of an accident and increases the severity of any given accident. All other things are not equal though and an experienced/talented driver in a capable car with his eyes on stalks for dangers ahead, with others to assist is going to significantly decrease the probability of an accident. What the net effect on the probability is, is anyone's guess.
Exactly right, and well put.The level of heightened awareness of these crews, and their skill and preparation, are way in excess of the normal motorist on their day to day journeys for work or pleasure.
The quality and emptiness of the roads is also something that is other-worldly compared to the UK.
Thoughts naturally turn to consideration of a domestic attempt at a similar feat, with Lands End to John O'Groats being the obvious start and end points. Putting to one side the obvious considerations for prosecution, and the need to run false plates to prevent your post man getting a bad back delivering all of the fines, the route and the roads that would need to be travelled on would make the challenge a completely different level of risk for safety considerations.
I watch the video on this they did and I have to say the planning and commitment was brilliant, it made me look at the whole thing differently and moved me away from the "what bloody idiot" aspect.
Ok daft to do and if they didn't have mates all over couldn't have done it but appreciate the effort that went into it.
Ok daft to do and if they didn't have mates all over couldn't have done it but appreciate the effort that went into it.
cheddar said:
My guess is that they overtake at around 90mph then accelerate up to 120/30/40 on the empty bits.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Gumball, rather than Cannonball, is whole elevated level of stupidity, drivers still intoxicated from 4am parties, weaving, racing, overtaking/undertaking at 200mph, endangering the general public and often crashing.
Gumball have tests for the drivers every morning now I think. From what I've seen it's not as bad as it used to be.I see nothing wrong with that.
Gumball, rather than Cannonball, is whole elevated level of stupidity, drivers still intoxicated from 4am parties, weaving, racing, overtaking/undertaking at 200mph, endangering the general public and often crashing.
Fantastic! The closest I’ve come to that is an average of 103mph for 45mins whilst driving from the Baltic coast to Frankfurt an der Oder in a diesel A6 estate with my brother. That was draining!
German hire car companies must spend a fortune on brakes as I was regularly slowing hard from 140 to 55ish as we came up to lorries passing each other.
German hire car companies must spend a fortune on brakes as I was regularly slowing hard from 140 to 55ish as we came up to lorries passing each other.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff